One. Wesley Salmon's argument for the claim that validity is a matter of form boils down to the following: If we have a valid argument, extract that argument's form, and then substitute nonsense words for the variables, we will be able to tell by close inspection that the argument using the nonsense words is still valid. Therefore, validity is a matter of form.
But this argument requires us to assent to the idea that the argument's form is valid, or we would not be able to make sense of the argument using the nonsense words at all. Therefore, the argument takes for granted what it is allegedly arguing for, and so is an instance of Begging the Question.
Two. Powell's attack on the fallacy approach does not involve saying that there are no fallacies. Also, he does not deny that diagnosing an argument as a fallacy and making it stick is showing that the argument fails somehow. He doesn't deny that the fallacy approach is teachable, or that using the fallacy approach is satisfying. Has he been unfair?
Three. What do we have to have in order to say that an argument is a good argument? What are some examples of good arguments and how do those criteria apply?
Four: Danny Fasko, after discussing (in Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Current Research, Theory, and Practice [Hampton Press: 2003]) definitions of critical thinking and the regrettable lack of consensus regarding those definitions, endorses the following definition: